This is tough to understand so I urge patience on those surprised by this. I was too, and I argued back in the
thread a couple of months back, but I've
had some time to think over and digest it, and to consider the evidence again. I was wrong then, and
carthago - and Barry Murphy who noticed details I overlooked - are right.
Whatever we call the process, carthago's coin has been altered from the worn example, and its
flan is identical in shape. It is a die-match to the coin with the
flan crack, but in the course of being altered, details at the highest points were made-up that do not match the die details of the coin with the flan-crack, and the nature of the alteration process has produced hairlines that are not natural because rather than
hairs being
engraved in a die
face, it is the
grooves between the hairs have been
engraved in a worn coin. The ear's shape is also changed compared with the die-match as a result of being cut back, and the height of the forehead has been noticeably decreased by cutting out the eye socket above the eye, to enhance details around the eye. etc.
I think the evidence of the coin having been cut-back in various places rules out it being formed by any means except direct tampering on the worn coin's
face. You cannot produce this effect by altering a mould - if you cut into a mould it has the opposite effect to cutting back a coin - it adds metal rather than removes it.
So there are only two coins illustrated in carthago's first post. Not three, two.
The
good thing is that such a technique should be recognisable. It's a very sophisticated form of tooling, but as with all tooling, the requirement to engrave positively rather than negatively, and the requirement to cut back fields in order to create apparent relief, create recognisable effects. The symptoms I've described are symptoms of tooling.